Cheek v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 8 — INDICTMENT—February APPEAL PROM LAUREL CIRCUIT COURT. 1. One cannot be convicted of bribery upon the testimony of the bribing witness alone.
Read the full summary
Case 8 — INDICTMENT—February APPEAL PROM LAUREL CIRCUIT COURT. 1. One cannot be convicted of bribery upon the testimony of the bribing witness alone. (Civil Code, sec. 241; Gen. Stats., secs. 11, 12, p. 529.) The amendment to the statute authorizing a conviction for bribery upon the testimony of one witness was not intended to authorize a conviction upon the testimony of an accomplice. 2. There is a variance between the proof and the indictment. 3. The verdict is erroneous in excluding the defendant from office and suffrage, that being a matter for the court and not the jury. Aside from the…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE BENNETT
delivered the opinion of the court
The appellant was convicted in the Lanrel Circuit Court of the offense of receiving a bribe of five dollars to vote at the August election, 1886, for certain persons who were candidates for the county offices of said county. The circuit court having overruled his motion for a new trial, he has appealed to this court.
It was proven by the only witness for the Commonwealth, on the trial, that he gave the appellant five dollars to vote for certain county candidates at the election. It was also proven that the appellant did vote for these candidates.…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Leitchfield Mercantile Co. v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1911
- King v. City of PinevilleCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1927
- Klyman v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1895
- State v. SchweitzerIdaho Supreme Court · 1910
- Bailey v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1923
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.